Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (110731)	8/9/2003 2:10:13 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Letter to President Bush Regarding his Justifications For War by the Sebastopol, CA City Council On Tuesday, August 5,2003, the Sebastopol, CA City Council unanimously voted to send the following letter to President Bush. George W. Bush President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: We write to you as elected representatives of the citizens of Sebastopol, California. As one of the 165 city councils thoroughout this country which passed resolutions opposing a preemptive strike against Iraq, we have serious concerns about the consequences of your decision to go to war. The cost to America of this war continues to mount - fiscally, morally, emotionally and in terms of our security. The lives of both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been sacrificed for what you assured us was a necessary war to protect our national security. We have yet to see evidence of the urgent threat you repeatedly proclaimed. As you know, cities and communities throughout America are facing a devastating fiscal crisis. The basic services which Americans expect from government, such as public safety, libraries, schools and roads, are provided at the local level. Without adequate funding these services will deteriorate or disappear. Recent GAO estimates place the cost of maintaining a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan at $4.9 billion per month. Had this money been allocated to our nation’s communities and cities we would not be facing our current crisis. Given that your argument for initiating a preemptive attack was based upon claims of a national security threat, we believe that you owe the American public satisfactory answers to the following questions: 1. Beyond the NSC and CIA officials who have been identified, who else at the White House was involved in the decision to include the discredited Niger uranium evidence in your State of the Union speech, and, if they knew it was false, why did they permit it to be included in the speech? 2. Why did your Administration persist in using the intercepted aluminum tubes to show that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program and why did your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, claim categorically that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," when in fact our own government experts flatly rejected such claims? 3. What was the basis was for Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion that the US had bulletproof evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda? 4. What is the evidence for Vice President Cheney’s claim last September to have "irrefutable evidence" that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, an assertion he repeated in March, on the eve of war? 5. What was the basis for Secretary Powell’s claim in February, before the UN Security Council, that, "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets”? 6. What is the evidence for Secretary Rumsfeld’s claim on March 30th, in reference to weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat?" 7. What are the true costs and long-term commitments of this war? 8. Why did you incorrectly claim that the war began because Iraq would not admit UN inspectors, when in fact Iraq had admitted the inspectors and you opposed extending their work? 9. Why did you persist in the plan to launch a preemptive strike against Iraq despite CIA Director Tenet’s warning that this would increase the risk of terrorist attacks against the people of the United States? 10. Where is Osama Bin Laden? 11. What is your plan to extricate America from Iraq? Mr. President, these are questions to which the American public deserves complete and honest answers. Your credibility as President and America’s credibility as a world leader depend upon your response. Sincerely, Members of the Sebastopol City Council Craig Litwin, Mayor Robert Anderson, Councilmember Linda Kelley, Councilmember Sam Spooner, Councilmember Larry Robinson, Councilmember ________________________________ Published on Friday, August 8, 2003 by CommonDreams.org commondreams.org

To: GST who wrote (110731)	8/9/2003 2:29:45 PM
From: Graystone	Respond to of 281500

between a rock and hard place or King Hamad Bin Issa Al Khalifa The decision by the Arab League, refusing troops in Iraq, has several implications for the occupying authority. In addition to losing the support of Arab peacekeepers, which would bolster the Iraqi situation tremendously, it sets the stage for significant UN opposition in the upcoming UN meetings. The country that is acting as the point for the Arab League and coordinating the political voice of the league is tiny Bahrain. Americans may not be impressed with the King, though he is a monarch and probably used to impressing people. Here are two links english.daralhayat.com menewsline.com Diplomacy should always allow for change, the use of the word impossible is not the correct diplomatic response to a diplomatic question. If you expect an answer that will include the word impossible the question isn't sharp, diplomatically speaking.

To: GST who wrote (110731)	8/10/2003 2:41:23 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Following the provisions of the Constitution of the United States satisfies American law, but has no legal standing beyond our borders. Iraq is not part of the United States. There is no law that supercedes the Constitution of the United States. You don't get it - there is no legal apparatus that supercedes the "internal decision-making process" of any nation-state. International law is only law insofar as the national authority agrees to be bound by it. And agrees to continue to be bound by it. Or is COERCED into abiding by its restrictions by nation-states or collections of nation-states whose interest(s) are served by doing so. International law DOES NOT have the same character as law of the State. You did not answer the question at all. By what authority did we invade Iraq? But I did. US Constitution (war powers). The highest authority in the United States. What perversion of law was authoratative in Iraq, or Asscrack, Timbuktoo, is irrelevant. Derek